HRx versus the Tape Project comparison

[joeljoel1947]

Your welcome. I've recently seen a lot of NEW movies and even commercials with reel to reel machines in them. Kind of like how the lp became "cool" again and started popping up in ads and such, open reel seems to be doing the same. Just the other night I was watching the newer "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movie (ummm, 2 kids---a two and four year old) and spied 2 open reel decks in David Savilles home recording studio----one of which Alvin proceeded to run around on the reel! Man, that made the whole movie good for me!!! And then of course there was Pulp Fiction with a cool deck getting a lot of play.

 

I agree, good to have options! There is a really good tape forum for newbies at:

tapeheads.net

 

[joeljoel1947]

FIM is my favorite label, bar none. At each CES I must visit Winston Ma and tell him he is the greatest ever. Such a nice guy too.

 

2 shows ago he was playing the tape project tapes which was awesome for me and then this year he was featuring the HRx stuff on a Amarra setup which was also amazing.

 

I have some of the older Yamamoto Trio releases, and will have to check that new one out. As it was recorded in all analog I can only assume that was for a LP release? I have been harping on Winston to begin releasing LP's again so it looks like it may be working!

 

It would be awesome to compare those 4 different formats to each other natively but us lowly "consumers" don't ever get a chance to. You hit on one thing I have always agreed on and that is the recording methods and engineering of the recordings. That's what makes or breaks everything!! And with an FIM release, I know for a fact that the best care was put into each of the 4 recording methodologies making YOUR PARTICULAR story extremely valid and interesting.

 

Thanks for the excellent post!!

 

[audiozorro]

SSL 9000J to DAD AX24 at 24/352.8

SSL 9000J to Pro Tools at 24/192

SSL 9000J to EMM Labs ADC8IV to Tascam DV-RA1000HD at DSD64fs

SSL 9000J to ATR 102 1/4" at 15ips

 

Would 24/192 ever come in first over all the rest?

 

[DSD_mastering]

I'm pretty sure if the Pro Tools DAW had been using a better converter instead of the conventional Digidesign 192, then it would have faired much better.

When we use our DAD AX24 into our Pro Tools rig, it's much better than our 192.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

[joeljoel1947]

The old beaten to dead horse rears its ugly head again. "If we did this instead" THEN "it would have faired much better"

 

As I stated several times in this thread, thats what makes comparisons like this so difficult between formats---even for a world class outfit like FIM----there are always so many variables, and so many different options of equipment and software to try that to determine an absolute "winner" is almost impossible. All you can do is try your best and report the findings, which is what I did in the OP.

 

[DSD_mastering]

That's why we did capture in the best formats using the best equipment. The Pro Tools rig belonged to the studio and they wanted to capture the performance for THEIR benefit. We got what we came for.... with no regrets and using the best equipment and engineers!

 

 

Regards,

 

[joeljoel1947]

That makes sense then on the 24/192 version.

 

I personally think I'll hold out for the LP version that came from the analog tape. That is unless the dxd in its native format on say Blu-Ray audio disc version comes out. The 2L recordings I have like that are simply stunning. I can't figure out how making a DXD ecording that is gonna end up on 16/44.1 cd makes any sense, but maybe thats just me. I know though if its FIM it will sound good though anyhow.

 

[manisandher]

I've just stumbled upon this thread.

 

Unfortunately, I think that the ONLY way to really hear 24/176.4 HRx files in all their glory is to use a Model Two to play them back on.

 

My understanding is that at 176.4 KHz, the Model Two (with which these files are recorded) uses a proprietary non-oversampled filter. The best replay will therefore be with the same filter...

 

Mani.

 

[idiot_savant]

or why have a filter? What is the purpose of the filter?

 

That's not to say that using equipment that is designed "in tandem" is pointless - you can imagine that the Model Two DAC & ADC sections have complementary filters, but that really is the thin end of the wedge, e.g.

 

How many recordings have been made "raw" with the Model Two at say 44.1k, vs Weiss ADC, Benchmark, dCS, Meitner, ULN-8, etc.

How many recordings have been mastered at higher rates with the above kit, and then downsampled with SRCs produced by ProTools, Izotope, Adobe, Weiss ?

 

You can't take a set of recordings as the basis to choose playback hardware, or you'll end up with an awful lot of playback hardware.

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Mani - It's great to see someone else here support the Model Two and understand the huge technological differences between it and most DACs available today. They truly are something special.

 

[manisandher]

Chris, you know I try to stay as objective as possible when it comes to hardware... but it's hard with the Model Two.

 

I_S, this is not my opinion. If you have an issue with a 'non-oversampled filter', take it up with Michael Ritter.

 

Mani.

 

[idiot_savant]

but I can't find any reference to this non-oversampling filter, and I don't have Michael Ritter's e-mail address handy.....

 

quotes?

 

My point wasn't really about the filter ( although I still stand by it ), but more that cherry picking playback hardware to suit recording hardware is liable to prove to be an expensive endeavour ( although I have no reason to believe that the Model Two is anything but excellent )

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot

 

[audiozorro]

Are we being led to believe that the legacy Model Two DAC sounds significantly better than the new Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC? And if so what current production DACs sound better than the Model Two or shall we just long for the old stuff while we wait impatiently for something better?

 

[manisandher]

My original post was in relation to the topic of this thread. The OP stated, "Marcia from RR told me that the HRx version would be superior to any '2nd generation analog dub'."

 

But he found this not to be the case... My point was that unless he were using a Model Two, then he would not be hearing the HRx files in their full glory.

 

FYI:

 

"If it's going to be 176.4 or 192kHz... we use a proprietary filter [non-oversampled] optimized to that sample rate."

Michael Ritter- MIX Magazine, 1999(!)

 

Mani.

 

[manisandher]

I'm sure you'll get the DAD and Metric Halo crowds giving their opinions sooner or later...

 

Mani.

 

[idiot_savant]

but a quote with non-oversampling in square brackets isn't enough to satisfy my curiosity ( square brackets meaning added by editor of magazine ).

What is the filter doing? Is the frequency response of the Model Two not flat, and needing compensation? Is there some "secret" HDCD-style coding going on, which would give it an unfair advantage during playback?

 

I'm saying no. Proprietary doesn't mean non-oversampling...

 

And, again, I would contend that requiring a matched filter for playing back stuff recorded by a manufacturer is a bit of a sweeping statement... are you saying that a 176.4k recording done via a Weiss can only be listened to ( in it's full glory ) on a Weiss D/A?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Zorro - Sadly yes, the Model Two is much better than the Alpha DAC. This is part of the reason one can spend $60,000 on the used market to purchase a M2. Colleagues of mine think the M2 sounds better than anything available today and truly are holding out for something better.

 

If someone can find the specs on the M2 and post them that would be nice. It's my understanding the whole chassis is made out of Copper. That's a minor indication of how well build this is and the thought process that went in to creating this classic component. I don't own one myself, but have listened to them many times. If I could afford one I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

 

 

EDIT: Here is the manual if anyone is interested Pacific Microsonics Model Two Manual

 

[MichaelHowell]

"It would be one thing if they were "just cool to look at" but the fact that you have the possibility to hear the best sound you've ever heard is a true bonus! Even commercial 7.5ips pre-recorded tapes off Ebay, for instance Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" or Dave Brubecks "Time Out" sound better on the tape then they so on any LP, SACD, you name it, that has ever been released on those same titles".

So I can ditch my over priced Scottish "schtuff" and get a reel-to-reel? Nice.

Doesn't tape hiss get on your nerves though?

 

However, I did want a Revox years ago.

 

[manisandher]

Yes, I accept that the editor of MIX may have made a mistake...

 

"And, again, I would contend that requiring a matched filter for playing back stuff recorded by a manufacturer is a bit of a sweeping statement... are you saying that a 176.4k recording done via a Weiss can only be listened to ( in it's full glory ) on a Weiss D/A?"

 

IN RELATION TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, yes I am saying that the HRx file needs to be played back on the machine on which it was recorded, to ensure that the optimum filter is used. This would ensure a fair comparison.

 

The OP was using an Otari for God's sake...

 

Mani.

 

[manisandher]

Chris, I think the best person to answer this would be Dave Peck of Euphonix.

 

But here's another snippet of info from Ritter (with no Editor remarks!):

 

"... because we use our own custom, discrete, full-ladder converter with excellent amplitude and phase accuracy, we are able to apply an 'anti-dither' signal, exactly out-of-phase and matched in time, in the digital domain after conversion. That nulls the dither noise out of the signal."

 

Another reason to use the Model Two to play back HRx files :-)

 

Mani.

 

[Purite Audio]

I 'bought' a Model 2 a few years back for $8k , a few were sold recently for quite a reasonable price I believe.

Keith.

 

[manisandher]

$8K? Maybe that's why your transaction was never completed?

 

I paid $10K for my (admittedly early serial number) machine last June... and jumped at the chance. [EDIT: By the time I got it across to the UK and paid import taxes, the cost was closer to $13K.]

 

I was told that a couple of years ago, machines were changing hands for up to $30-50K. I think a more reasonable estimate today would be $15-20K... if you could find one.

 

(There was a Model One for sale on Ebay recently for $10K - but of course, it only has 44.1/88.2 capability.)

 

Mani.

 

 

 

[Purite Audio]

Mani Hi, that's right I almost bought one, very disappointing ,especially after arranging to have it serviced at Euphonix, arranging shipping etc, luckily I can come and hear yours! I can bring the Metric Halo /Model 4?

Very best, Keith.

 

[manisandher]

Keith, you're welcome to come over and listen to the Model Two, once I have my system set up again (having just moved house).

 

But I'm not sure that I'm comfortable having the Model Two compared to any gear that you currently sell. It would be so easy to market stuff by saying, "I compared xxx to the Model Two and preferred xxx" (as indeed has happened elsewhere on this site). I find such statements totally vacuous if one has a vested interest in promoting xxx.

 

But I'm sure the DAD and MH/SS units really are fine machines... :-)

 

Mani.

 

[joeljoel1947]

I am the original poster. And just joking in that title there as a reminder on how quickly the PC DAC landscape is changing.

 

Just to put everyone posting today on a "reality check", you are not going to beat a Tape Project Tape dub of a original analog RR master with the HRx version using a Model 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. It's just not going to be possible. I have two of them to compare (HRx versus TP release), "Arnold's Overtures" and "Exotic Dances" and the differences are so far superior on the tape (would that surprise ANYONE considering these recordings were made originally on analog open reel and then later duped to 24/176.4 digital for the HRx release????) that I don't care how much you spend on a 24/176.4 converter---the digital version will NEVER win.

 

And as for the snide "The OP was using an Otari for God's sake..." comment. Yes I do. I have many of them---consoles, stand ups, etc. I also have some of the finest consumer machines made by Techincs, Teac, etc. Otari's are some of the finest machines in the world and are recommended by the Tape Project to play back their master dubs on! The solid state electronics in the Otari are BYPASSED and I am running through SOTA Bottlehead TUBE ELECTRONICS if that is your hang-up. If you hang-up on Otari is something else, I would love to hear what it is, and also hear about what open reel deck you are running. I have compared the 5050 Otari line to Studer's, Ampex's, Scully's, etc. and never felt the need to chase those brand names. The Otari is the last open reel deck still in production, and for good reason! If you have 15k to drop on a model 2 DAC, I recommend you shell out another 7k and pick up an Otari to see what you've been missing in the world of reel to reel!!!! If you want to further educate yourselves on the merits of open reel and what you can gain sonically, I recommend a brand new article written by Positive Feedback writer Myles Astor:

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue46/tape_project.htm

 

I just wanted to point these things out as I disagree with what has been stated today. Trying to state that either a) a better DAC would have made HRx sound better then the reel or b) that an Otari MX-5050 deck is not sufficient enough to play back a master dub are both PREPOSTEROUS! You are talking about an original ANALOG RECORDING here! You will not be able to beat a dupe of it in HRx---despite what Marcia says! See here:

http://www.tapeproject.com/smf/index.php/topic,1031.0.html